Member Info for StarBright

@notrex - for clarity, once the oversubscription was revealed there was no after-the-fact “administrative process” through which AVCT could have accepted the surplus. The only way they could have taken more than they did would have been if they’d gone down the prospectus-based route in the first instance. They hadn’t, so they could only take what they did.

AVCT has perhaps not been well served by Stiffel, who are paid to advise the board on capital raising etc. I agree - albeit with hindsight - that they could evidently have raised more than they did had they gone for a prospectus-based raise. Either Stiffel told them they wouldn’t get it away, or the cost and hassle of doing a prospectus (a non-trivial task with many verifications/attestations etc require) was too much for them to contemplate. Evidently they didn’t think they’d need the funds, so perhaps there was a misread of the pathway to commercialisation. That would definitely be a strike against AS and the board if true. We’ll never know though.

AVCT didn’t turn down extra capital from the 95p raise. They took the maximum amount they were permitted to by regulation for a raise conducted without a prospectus*.

To say that the 95p offering was oversubscribed is 100% accurate. To extend this to “Avacta displayed its confidence by turning down the extra funds” is just wishful thinking.

This straightforward and uncontroversial point was made here fairly frequently by posters with capital markets experience - not just by me. But the notion “Avacta turned down capital” has persisted, perhaps due to the alacrity of AVCTs resident rampers - for whom it quickly became an article of faith alongside “It works”, “no phase 3”, “no placing” etc etc - and their attendant guards here who prefer to attack every post or poster not viewed as compliant with the “golden thread” of the accepted narrative. The net result of which is that informed posters with relevant experience stop posting, because adult discussion isn’t possible. An object lesson in echo chambers.

*If you’re interested in the regulatory background to this, see https://www.simmons-simmons.com/en/publications/ck0a76zitcqq70b59oyfhjzpi/110718-prospectus-regulation-increase-in-exempt-offers-threshold-to-8-million

SDRY has a main market listing.

This means there is no Nomad.

Only AIM segment companies have Nomads.

What did I say yesterday regarding new visitors? Like night follows day….

You’ve got to laugh.

Interesting. Major shareholder(s) evidently saying no to BoD resolutions that would free them up for issuance to fund pet projects. Good.

Perhaps we’ll get a visit from the Earl? Or Degsy and his crew?

Agreed!

Perhaps the other area where some clarity would be helpful is on the usage of BESS facilities by the UK Grid. I haven’t been able to get a very clear answer on exactly what has stopped, why it has stopped and when/whether it will be resumed. GSF is content to make a positive about revenue diversification, but the truth is that this is making the best of a difficult situation that has been forced upon them (& other UK storage providers). I’d be happy to see UK sourced revenues recovering! If anyone has clearer insight into the what/why/when questions, I’d be really interested to hear it.

Below 70p I continue to view this as a highly attractive proposition in a diversified yield portfolio. Rathbones selling is usually the best of buy indicators btw..!

All looks good to me, with the dividend confirmed at 2p as expected. Also good news that there is stronger commitment in language on additional energisation this calendar year, for both UK and California. If/when these projects are delivered, cash generation (which I find MUCH more interesting than the NAV) will be increased materially.

Sometimes a little bit of issuance - for employee share plans, or old warrants, whatever - changes the denominator and anyone sitting spot on a notification threshold ends up having to issue a TR1 even though their holding hasn’t changed.

Interesting development.

Looks like Blackrock have deliberately targeted the 5% level which creates a disclosure obligation for them, hence this RNS. They could easily have stopped at 4.99% and stayed under the radar. That they didn’t suggests they are looking to make the wind blow, as someone once put it (in a film)…

It’s not possible to state with confidence whether the set of size trades reported this week were buys or sells, or a mixture. Individual trades could themselves be BOTH a buy and a sell at the same time (in the same way as ATs traded on the order book).

The SINT designation itself tells us only the nature of the venue where the trades were executed. It doesn’t tell us anything about who bought or sold, or whether these were positions being opened or closed.

If a short position has been built then the notification threshold is just above 25m shares, so perhaps we’ll see something there.

If it’s an existing holder reducing their position (Tribeca were allegedly interested sellers recently…) then they’d have to be starting at over 3% and shifting more than 50m shares before any disclosure was required. So perhaps less likely that we’ll see a TR1.

GGP does suffer from the attention flow desks because of the ETF holdings. They can/will transact in size, and will borrow if necessary. Very adept at not leaving clumsy footprints in the market, so I wouldn’t expect any confirmation.

TLDR - it’s not possible to say with any certainty what these trades are. We may get some more info via disclosures in the next few days, but probably not.

In offering up a local-rules definition of accretive, SD told us something interesting. He defined accretive as meaning that a GGP shareholder today owning X% of GGP effectively owns X% of GGP’s 30% of Havieron and would “effectively own” at least X% after any deal. This is a clever redefinition. It frees him up to issue new equity (/alongside any debt) at a discount whilst maintaining that such a deal is “accretive” for existing holders.

By way of illustration, the Five Diggers own 139m of the 5.1bn shares in issue, roughly 2.7%. So they own 2.7% of GGP’s 30% or 0.81% of Havieron. For any future equity issuance NOT to be dilutive under SD’s definition, 5D would need to end up owning at least 0.81% of GGP and therefore of Havieron. On this basis, the MAXIMUM number of shares issuable would (139m/0.81%)-5.1bn = 12bn new shares.

A switched-on analyst would argue that those 12bn shares would have to be issued for cash at NO discount to the prevailing share price for the conventional definition of accretive to be satisfied.

At today’s SP that would imply a limit-price for NEM’s 70% of 12bn * 6.55p or £800m. However, if the price for the 70% were to be agreed at say £400m (roughly USD500m) then the 12bn shares could be issued at 3.33p, a 50% discount to the prevailing SP. 5D would still own 139m of the 17.1bn shares in issue, representing 0.81% of GGP or 0.81% of Havieron. SD would - using his new definition - argue that they hadn’t been diluted. They might view that differently!

Of course there’s very little chance that a purchase of the 70% would be solely financed with equity. The more debt that is used, the more likely it is that SD would be able to paint such a purchase as accretive. Again to illustrate, this time using £400m at 50% equity 50% debt; 6bn new shares would be issued so 5D would own 139m of 11.1bn or 1.25%. SD would say they’ve gone from effective ownership of 0.81% to 1.25%

It all gets very complicated if there’s a package deal for the 70%+Telfer, especially if the “value” of Telfer was negative. The two components would have to be disaggregated to apply the definition that SD proposes.

So…. SD’s promise that any deal for the 70% would be undertaken only if it were accretive requires acceptance of his novel new definition of accretive. He’s phrased it in a clever way that makes it very easy for him to meet his promise, even whilst issuing more shares at a discount. Investors here need to keep their eyes wide open.

So….. Holders will receive a final dividend, albeit one reduced by 20% in line with the company calls “adjusted earnings”. Looks like a reasonable outcome to me, with the worst fears of some commentators not being realised.

I did point out yesterday that the TH materials are more likely be focussed on the interim results than they are on any grand unveiling. Q&A will be interesting, but he’s a pro at saying “Look…” and not answering direct questions. A core skill for listed company CEO’s!

He has been consistently attentive to comms with PIs, to his credit. I am watching with interest.

To get the Panel to agree to an extension generally requires the potential offeror to demonstrate they are seriously engaged and working hard…

Not commenting on SDRY, but dropped in for a read ahead of the big day tomorrow. “Thisrty Thursday” is THE going out night in the City though @Toffers…

https://www.cityam.com/we-cant-stop-london-changing-how-the-four-day-week-enables-thirsty-thursday/

Results due 6th March? Perhaps they'll release those on Tueday instead and that'll be the focus of the TH? Could even release them after close on Tuesday, although that would mean he'd need different materials for the VidCon and the TH itself so perhaps unlikely.

That there was “excess demand” for placing shares at 50p tells us that it was under-priced. The company has been absolutely turned over by its brokers here, who have likely been telling SirAl that they won’t get it filled at 60p so you’ll have to reduce to 50p etc. I wonder what price they started at…?

This is what happens when you put a scientist in charge of a quoted company. Expertise in one field doesn’t readily translate.

Much easier with foresight like SirAl…!